The Arizona champion., 1887-10-29
District Court Calendar,
UNITED STATES CIvIL GALES

5 The United States vs John H. Marion ct al. U. S. Attorney Tor plaintiff, E. w. Wells for defendants.
 4. The United States vs Wm. C. Days ct al. U. $. attorney for plain rH; Rush, Wells x Howard for de fendantS.
 5. Art Mcdonald vs Atlantic & Pa cine Railroad Company. Hlrris Bud win for plaintiff w. C. Hazledine and Herndon & Hawkins for d,fen. dant.
 TERRITORIAL CRIMINAL CASES
 I. Geo. w. Lails vs James W, Col. gan. Clark Churchill for plaihtilr; Rush & Wells for defendant.
 ?. John 4. Webb vs John Mars, l. F. Elggers for plaintiff; Rush & Wells for deiendant.
 3. Oscar Lincoln vs Anna Curtis, execu,rix; Howard and MoGrew for plaintiff. E. NJ. Sanford for deien- dant. ....
 h re R. ]. Carimell ct al vs the Howell Smelling and Mining Con- pady. HcrudCn X Hawkins and E.. N. Sar dlord for plaintiff J. Howard f~r defendant.
 5.l. w. Sullivan vs George Puntnev Herndon x Hawkins for plaintiff, E. NJ. SanGIrd for defendant.
 6. Palmer & Ray vs w. O.. O'Neln. Rush, Wells X Howard for plaintiff; E. NJ Sandford for defen- dant.
 : A. C Cloagh vs James Wing, Rush X Wells for plaintiff; Herndon X Howkins for defendant.
 s ? w. Strahan vs St Louis and Yavapai Mill and Mining Company. Rush, Wells X Howard for the plain. l uf; Herndor & HlwxIns for deien- dant.
 9. lake Marks vs St Louis and Yav pal Mill ani Mining Go. Rush, Wells & HowaId fo- plaintiff; Hercdon X Hawkins for defendant. 10. John G. Campbell and lame, NJ. Baker vs w. C. Bashiord, treasur. CT. Rush, Wells & Howard for plain. tIGs; John C, Herndon for defendant. 1T Noah C.. Shccklcs vs Richard, son & S,eamens. E. NJ. Sanford for plaintiff, Herndon and Hawkins for defendants.
 Iz. Edward H. Horton vs ]. F.. OS' enburg ct al, w. II. Nc Grew for plaintiff; Herndon and Hawkins for defendants.
 IS. San Bakis vs Frank Riselda ! John Howard for plaintiff. Rush, Wells and Howard for defendant.
 I4. John Clark vs P P Daggs. I G Norris and Hernuon x Hawkins for plaintiff; W L Vau Horn for de 'endant.
 10. John F Daggs vs Harry Rox. woith. W l. Van Horn for plaintiff II J.MIller for defendant.
 20 Jacob Ebinger vs Arizona Cat tie Company; Il J Miller for plaintiff. C Norris for defendant.
 2, Aztec Land and Cattle Com pany vs F Daggs et al Rush, Wells X Howard and T s Bunch for plan tiff, w L Van Horn for defendants.
 "A, Robert ScouIvs Georg D. Ma, gle and II. R Leonard. Egeers and Howard IT plaintiff; Howard and Sanford for defendants.
 2s Territory of Arizoun ex rel i Hriggs Goodrich vs Oscar Lincoln el al. Briggs Goodrich, attorney geneal, tor plaintiff.
 ] a6. W. G Stewart vs ] R. Xii 1 patrlck. Herndon x Hawkins for plaintiff; E. NJ. Sanford for defendants
 z7. Samuel Brookwirz vs D Levy t al. l.. F. Eggers for plaintiff E. NJ. Sanford for defendent.
 2S. F M Morgnet. ct al vs the Walnut, Grove Water ,SlorageiComp any. Edwards & Chambers and E | NJ. Sanford for plaintiff; Sumner Howard for defendant.
 APPEALED CAsES-TERRIToRIhL.
 w. II. McGrew, appellant, V: CrW. Beach. respondent. w H. MtGrew for appellant; Rush, Wells X Howard for respondent.
 2. w H. Williams, respondent, vs Campbell x Baker, appellant. E. M, Sanford for respondent, Rush, Wells x Howard for appellant.
 !. John Chart, appellant. vs Jeh D Shipp, respondent. Herndon X Hawkins for appellant; Rush, Wells & Howard for respondent. 1 1. Philip Hohan respondent vs E o Wilcox appellant. Thos G Norris for respondent, H Miller for appel lant. .......
 E. B-Smith, respondent vs Dav. i'd Babbitt appellant. II J'Mlller for respondent; Thos C Norris for appel lant.
 DIVORCE CASES
 I. Andrew s. Gonzales vsT Emma Gonzales. H l. Van Horn for plain tiff; H l Miller for defendant.
 Emma Gonzales vs Andrew s Gonzales. H Miller for plaintiff; I